RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,534
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 465
Newest member: space2050

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar Online Debut
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Warp 5.0: Trek Toward Sci-Fi’s Golden Anniversary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Takei To Host Pittsburgh Symphony PNC Pops’ Sci-Fi Spectacular
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Kurtzman In Mummy Talks
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 21 2013, 01:30 AM   #31
feek61
Captain
 
feek61's Avatar
 
Location: The Sunshine State
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
The deck 12 reference, the deck 5 references, the size and shape of Kirk’s cabin, the curved hallway seen just outside, and the approximate scale of the ship, are all data points obtainable from viewing the episodes, but only the deck 5 references are consistent with the rest of the data, so something has to give, I say let it be the deck 12 “throwaway line”. The writer/producers didn’t sweat the details and neither should we, they never intended for anyone to take all this so literally and try to make sense of things they gave little or no thought to!
Why is "only" the Deck 5 reference consistent with the rest of the data?

It is consistent with The Making of Star Trek and "Journey to Babel", but there are noticable differences outside Kirk's cabin in the corridors ("The Enemy Within" vs. "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" vs. "Journey to Babel" vs. "The Mark of Gideon").

Maybe changing cabins is one of Kirk's hobbies, maybe he had to take provisional quarters in the beginning of the first season because Deck 5 was being upgraded along with other internal parts of the ship after "Where No Man Has Gone Before". We simply don't know.

Fact: The Making of Star Trek clearly refers to a saucer-engineering hull separation other than for emergencies (saucer and engineering hull can operate as separate entities), only the deck numbers for the saucer are spelled out, the engineering hull had 16 decks.

There's no reason not to assume that the numbering of engineering decks starts at the top of the neck dorsal (especially considering the turbo lift ride to "Deck 2" in "The Enterprise Incident"...).
This would put (Engineering) Deck 12 right below the shuttlebay flight deck level, and the curvature of the hull is compatible with the cabin back wall angle and the windows (according to the 1966 Desilu studio plans these were "windows"!). I don't believe we are looking at a coincidence, this rather looks like a deliberate intention of the early TOS.

Apparently, there was the romantic idea in the beginning of TOS ("Hornblower Effect") that the captain should of course have a cabin with windows but there weren't that many suitable locations for it and it turned out to be Deck 12 before somebody intervened and demanded that the captain's cabin be moved closer to the Bridge.

And there are plenty of other examples where we saw circular corridors in the engineering hull. Heck, I don't like them either but as a matter of fact they are there, and IMHO impossible to ignore. In my deck plan project I tried to rationalize these as good as I thought possible.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
On a minor note; concerning the commodore rank stripes, I seem to recall reading in one of the interviews that the version FJ chose was an intentional choice made so that the progression of higher ranks would be more consistent with the lower ranks that went before (or below)? As such, while certainly inconsistent with what we saw onscreen, it isn’t really a “mistake” since it was an “informed decision” that was made with full knowledge of what the original design was.
If Franz Joseph had heralded his work as accurate (Ballantine Books labelled the deck plans as "authentic"), which he didn't to my knowledge and is therefore excused, it would be a mistake.

But please... "Informed descision"? It's the same thing Mike Okuda did with the Romulan Crest from "The Enterprise Incident".
The moment such "expert" decides to let personal preference get in the way and ignore such facts, I reserve the right do doubt whether such a person is really suitable for the job of treknological research, which should be unbiased, first. That's my personal opinion and you may feel free to disagree with it (yet, I don't see why this makes me a detestible bully).

Bob
Really? It's a frickin' TV show with deadlines and this line just slipped through. I'm sorry but to believe that the production had a grand scheme with Kirk having multiple quarters for the saucer separation and that it was factored into the earliest episodes is a little crazy. I love Star Trek as much as anyone here and probably more crazy about it then most but not everything on the show makes sense because it was a SHOW!!!!
__________________
feek61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:34 AM   #32
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Given the recent discussions regarding Franz Joseph's Star Trek related work from the 1970s I'm intrigued by something of a thought exercise.

For a long time many fans accepted FJ's work as pretty much accepted gospel in terms of Trek technical background, at least in regards to TOS, TAS and the early films. But when TNG bowed FJ's work began to be forgotten as the new creators sought to put their stamp on Trek's world building and effectively rewrite what had long been accepted.

Now for discussion's sake how would you update FJ's technical manual if given the opportunity? Would you adhere to what he had established or only accept parts of it? Or would you simply ignore it altogether in favour of something totally new reflecting the "official" world-building as written from TNG onward?

Thoughts anyone?

I'd like some opinions before I weigh in with my own perspective.

Star Trek is a fictional universe, it is open to interpretation by different artists working on it...it's a malleable thing, and in the scheme of things not a religious experience, therefore if the studio chosen producers choose to change the warp scale then that's how it goes...no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:52 AM   #33
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

RAMA wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
Given the recent discussions regarding Franz Joseph's Star Trek related work from the 1970s I'm intrigued by something of a thought exercise.

For a long time many fans accepted FJ's work as pretty much accepted gospel in terms of Trek technical background, at least in regards to TOS, TAS and the early films. But when TNG bowed FJ's work began to be forgotten as the new creators sought to put their stamp on Trek's world building and effectively rewrite what had long been accepted.

Now for discussion's sake how would you update FJ's technical manual if given the opportunity? Would you adhere to what he had established or only accept parts of it? Or would you simply ignore it altogether in favour of something totally new reflecting the "official" world-building as written from TNG onward?

Thoughts anyone?

I'd like some opinions before I weigh in with my own perspective.

Star Trek is a fictional universe, it is open to interpretation by different artists working on it...it's a malleable thing, and in the scheme of things not a religious experience, therefore if the studio chosen producers choose to change the warp scale then that's how it goes...no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand.

RAMA
Oh, thank you, that was most helpful and constructive.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 03:07 AM   #34
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Given the recent discussions regarding Franz Joseph's Star Trek related work from the 1970s I'm intrigued by something of a thought exercise.

For a long time many fans accepted FJ's work as pretty much accepted gospel in terms of Trek technical background, at least in regards to TOS, TAS and the early films. But when TNG bowed FJ's work began to be forgotten as the new creators sought to put their stamp on Trek's world building and effectively rewrite what had long been accepted.

Now for discussion's sake how would you update FJ's technical manual if given the opportunity? Would you adhere to what he had established or only accept parts of it? Or would you simply ignore it altogether in favour of something totally new reflecting the "official" world-building as written from TNG onward?

Thoughts anyone?

I'd like some opinions before I weigh in with my own perspective.
There's so much territory ripe in what you're asking here. There still does not exist a definitive and comprehensive Tech Manual for Star Trek - Original Series. After all these DECADES. LOL

It wouldn't take much. Maintain the vibe that FJ created in his work, but make it more closely align with, and respect, that which we saw on-screen. Antigravs? Put them in there? The salt-shaker medical scanner? The device I dubbed the Test Ray Generator? Put it in there! Correct the bridge and deck layouts. Provide high-res orthos of the USS Enterprise of Kirk, Pike, the Shuttlecraft, K7 space station, Harry Mudd's ship, the Botany Bay. The cricket phaser, phaser pistol, laser pistol, laser rifle. Medical tricorder, communicator.

So much fun to imagine! So much fortune and glory for whoever puts it together right!
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 03:17 AM   #35
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

SonicRanger wrote: View Post
Fleet Headquarters is an anachronism even in the TOS universe. Centripetal force rather than artificial gravity (which even 1990s ships apparently had), wires holding ships in place inside spheres with goofy doors, etc.
There you go! It seems out of place in terms of the interiors. Maybe they could keep the swollen external profile and integrate it into a precursor to the STIII space dock?
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 04:10 AM   #36
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

I have no problem rationalizing the deck 12 reference, but let’s be honest, anything we come up with is exactly that, a rationalization of an inconsistency. Sure, it makes sense that the captain would have a cabin in the secondary hull in addition to his other one, regardless of which deck we assume it’s on, but that doesn’t change the fact that the deck 12 reference was just a “placeholder” of sorts and used at a time when the writer/producers hadn’t even begun to think this stuff through. And when they did begin to give it some thought they chose deck 5 as the location of the captains quarters, which by the way, is also unequivocally stated in TMoST, and once decided upon was consistently adhered to and referenced multiple times.

Anyway, to get back on topic, the consensus of opinion seems to be to change and correct almost everything in FJ’s tech manual, which leaves very little of the original intact? This is why I think a distinction should be made between “updating” and “reimagining” or whatever terms one prefers. As I see it, updating and expanding on FJ’s universe would just involve a respectful tweaking of a few things here or there, whereas for those who want a more faithful tech manual based on what we saw in TOS/TAS then only the format, but not necessarily the contents, need be used? Personally I’d like to see both approaches realized.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 04:30 AM   #37
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

There's a lot of terminology and such FJ used that I have no problem retaining. I liked his fleshing out of Starfleet and Federation organizational structure.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 08:41 AM   #38
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
I have no problem rationalizing the deck 12 reference, but let’s be honest, anything we come up with is exactly that, a rationalization of an inconsistency.
How do you know it is an inconsistency?

How do you know that this is not something they intended (Deck 12 matches the deck level, the cabin walls match the angle of the ship's hull, there are windows with shutters - quite some strange coincidence), before they changed it?

Ironically, the kind of criticism aridas sofia tried to expose me to is exactly the kind of criticism I feel to be applicable to what is merely an assumption at the expense of people that no longer walk the Earth ("they didn't know what they were doing").

Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider, that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.

@ corporal captain

No, obviously you didn't get it, you're confusing "passion" with "preference". All I was trying to convey was that if you don't feel passionate about something, one shouldn't wonder that the outcome is not a role model of accuracy.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 09:59 AM   #39
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Passion can just as easily cloud judgement and a dedication to telling the truth. You love something so you overlook anything that casts the thing you love in a negative light. You are so passionate about something that you construct an idealized vision of the thing in your mind and tell about that instead, the truth be damned.

Oh, waitaminute. That sounds like what ended up in the Technical Manual and Booklet of General Plans.

If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing. He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said. You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.

Sanitized? How?

When you replace this book that topped the bestseller lists in the 1970s with your own remake, are you going to show the distinctions between high collared early first season tunics designed not to mess up make up and regular first-second season tunics and polyester third season tunics? Are you going to explain how they are made from polyester and velour but Starfleet tells us they are made from algae? The differences in the eleven foot model from first to second pilot to series? From 33" model to eleven foot? An unfinished and undetailed side with wiring hanging out? Are you going to provide the "in-universe explanation why K-7 just so happens to look just like a Douglas Aircraft inflateable space shelter from 1960? What about all those non-hero props that look undetailed and misshapen? What's the in universe explanation with that? Rocks that look like paper mâché? Plywood textured sets? Star Fleet officers that all wear makeup? I'm sure that your "passion" will lead to a clear, unvarnished view of these things, no?

No?

But if not, how do you choose what to leave out?

You let your passion guide you in sanitizing the inconsistencies. Oh...

Just like what Franz Joseph did.

Your choices will be different because your passions are different. So, what we are discussing here isn't a lack of fidelity to truth. It is differences in an artistic vision guided by different passions about the subject matter. One guy wants to make it all fit together to portray what he thinks will make the TV production appear more like a realistic future space navy, so he ignores things he doesn't think fit that vision. HOWEVER, respecting the fact other fans may think differently, he creates a story whereby the book produced is represented as just a tiny fraction of the total number of pages a total view would have. And provides an organizational framework whereby if your vision differs you can add it and everybody else's varying visions to the book. IDIC and all.

The other wants just what was on the show. He spends years tracking down surviving props and sets and costumes and make up appliances, etc. and draws them, blemishes and all, in his commitment to canon.

The interesting thing is, this second vision can fit within the first one. And fanon crap like the UFP articles you don't like? You can create your own fanon article saying they were superceded at some point.

Or, you can continue to degrade the vision that appealed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans at the time it was written. You can denigrate it despite the fact it appealed to them sufficiently to motivate them to buy this thing portraying this stuff that was in the show... stuff they were so passionate and obsessive about that they wanted to know everything about it and yet knowing everything they did, still bought despite it being portayed so "inaccurately". You will do this despite the fact he has provided you a means, built into his work, to correct what he did.

I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.

Not very IDIC, that.

Last edited by aridas sofia; May 21 2013 at 10:20 AM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 10:19 AM   #40
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
@ corporal captain

No, obviously you didn't get it, you're confusing "passion" with "preference". All I was trying to convey was that if you don't feel passionate about something, one shouldn't wonder that the outcome is not a role model of accuracy.

Bob
Nah. That's not what you said.

Your post—quoted below, with my reply in question—read like an assertion that FJ should have been disqualified because of his affinity for LiS. Frankly, his liking of LiS has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I don't care how many times this guy says the author of the Technical Manual was a lowly Lost in Space fan. It is irrelevant to the judgement of his work if that work did not depend upon him being a Trek fan.
Stop putting words in my mouth I didn't say. If you think "Lost in Space" is "lowly" that is apparently your opinion, I didn't use the word.

However, I feel if someone is more passionate about "Lost in Space" than Star Trek, then such a person is probably better suited to do something for "Lost in Space" than Star Trek.

Bob
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Ah. So, in order to be qualified to work on Star Trek, a person can't enjoy something else more. Got it.
Honestly, it looks to me as if FJ was nothing but passionate about the TM and Connie blueprints. But, we've had this convo before in another thread.

Differences from the show ≠ a lack of passion. On the other hand, initiative, imagination, and vision = passion.
__________________
John

Last edited by CorporalCaptain; May 21 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason: typo
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 11:35 AM   #41
Shawnster
Fleet Captain
 
Shawnster's Avatar
 
Location: Clinton, OH
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Passion for the show or love for his daughter?

Regardless, it was still an incredible amount of effort, even with the "mistakes"
Shawnster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:09 PM   #42
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing.
Yes.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said.
If this thread were correctly filed under "fan art" or "fan fiction" ("create your own canon") or "The Star Trek Universe according to Franz Joseph" I would not have weighed in.
Most of his work is conjectural and where he had a chance to deliver accurate reproductions (the Season Two studio set was featured in The Making of Star Trek) he apparently decided to ignore it.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.
I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel, it's the source and what 99% of TOS fans relate to (apparently we have approx. 1% of individuals that disagree).

The moment you disregard what's onscreen, i.e. ignore it, change it, alter it etc. will yield a "sanitized version" and that's what we are talking about.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
You let your passion guide you in sanitizing the inconsistencies. Oh... Just like what Franz Joseph did.
By bringing in more inconsistencies?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.
Let's see, we had this "vision" for almost 40 years, for people like James Dixon, Lenny Nurdbol and others it apparently had the unhealthy effect of becoming a petrified dogma, and we still don't have a TOS-devoted publication (except for Geoffrey Mandel's Officers Manual), with accurate crest reproductions (United Earth, Romulan Star Empire), a complete (and correct) list of hand props ("ray gun"???) and accurate Enterprise interior reproductions based on the original studio sets.

Would really be nice to see something like this coming for the 50th Anniversary and I'm doing my part trying to provide the latter one.

Bob

@ Shawnster

Concise comment in a nutshell.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:50 PM   #43
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing. He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said. You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.

Sanitized? How?

When you replace this book that topped the bestseller lists in the 1970s with your own remake, are you going to show the distinctions between high collared early first season tunics designed not to mess up make up and regular first-second season tunics and polyester third season tunics? Are you going to explain how they are made from polyester and velour but Starfleet tells us they are made from algae? The differences in the eleven foot model from first to second pilot to series? From 33" model to eleven foot? An unfinished and undetailed side with wiring hanging out? Are you going to provide the "in-universe explanation why K-7 just so happens to look just like a Douglas Aircraft inflateable space shelter from 1960? What about all those non-hero props that look undetailed and misshapen? What's the in universe explanation with that? Rocks that look like paper mâché? Plywood textured sets? Star Fleet officers that all wear makeup? I'm sure that your "passion" will lead to a clear, unvarnished view of these things, no?

No?

But if not, how do you choose what to leave out?
Or, you can continue to degrade the vision that appealed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans at the time it was written. You can denigrate it despite the fact it appealed to them sufficiently to motivate them to buy this thing portraying this stuff that was in the show... stuff they were so passionate and obsessive about that they wanted to know everything about it and yet knowing everything they did, still bought despite it being portayed so "inaccurately". You will do this despite the fact he has provided you a means, built into his work, to correct what he did.

I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.

Not very IDIC, that.
It it a matter of passion to rehshape the ST tech in his won view, or missing the purpose of such books. No fantasy film tech manual ever refers to production shortcomings or solutions, and try to just find what fits best (since most of what they're referring to does not exist).

For example, everyone and his granny knows the original Star Wars lightsaber hilt props were made from Graflex 4x5 flash attachments, and were altered across the original 3 movies, or the drastic film-to-film changes to Vader's chest controls, and how the surface of many SW ships have recognizable car and boat model kit parts plastered all over their surfaces (not so very "far, far away" tech) but none of the tech manuals released over the past 30 years ever seek to clean it up as part of a crusade to address real world production shortcomings / choices.

Why? Because to do so takes the audience out of the fantasy of the fictional world--not the point of a tech manual.

That's the difference between a tech manual and a behind the scenes book, so no one would need to explain away TOS uniform changes, post pilot ship modifications, etc. If one makes the choice to "sanitize" the odd changes, the real life production tweaks will never have to be wholly ignored, but one will settle on a happy medium--or what is percieved as the best version of an object, uniform, etc.

Or perhaps they can explain away the early TOS high collars change as a mere in-universe uniform change, much in the way WW2 army uniforms were no longer the design basic decades later.

There are easy ways of dealing with this, and still selling the fiction as cohesive in design and purpose.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 03:32 PM   #44
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

Bob,

When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?" my reply is how do you know it is not? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion I suppose.

You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”

I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid conclusion?

And I don’t know what TV show you’ve been watching, but the captain’s cabin set does not match the secondary hull contours, in fact, MJ designed and built it to look as if it fit within the circular primary hull, which was his intention, this is so obvious I wouldn’t think that it would even need to be questioned? In this case I think your passion has led you astray.

And this next quote really takes the cake, “I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel…” here, your Freudian slip says it all, you’re blinded by your passion, and cannot, or will not, see that the star trek is not a religion, it’s a TV show!

Oh, I almost forgot; how in the world do you figure FJ "ignored" the stage set floor plans from TMoST when he not only used it for the basis of his deck seven plan, but actually inadvertently copied some of the discrepancies it had with the actual sets?

I see you're using the TMoST set plans in your own project, so then you're inheriting these (gasp) "inaccuracies" yourself, so your much vaunted precious passion has done you little more good it seems, than FJ's supposed lack thereof.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; May 21 2013 at 04:25 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 10:33 AM   #45
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Updating FJ's technical manual?

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?" my reply is how do you know it is not? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion I suppose.

You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”

I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid conclusion?
It's a matter of giving somebody the "benefit of a doubt". It's the guiding principle of our ethical and political system most of us live in and one of its strongest supporters is Star Trek, e.g. "Court-Martial" which beautifully illustrates how not giving Kirk the benefit of a doubt would have resulted in an unjust verdict, since he had become the victim of foul play.

For the same reason, we should equally give the makers of Star Trek the benefit of a doubt, that they knew what they were doing, before jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions at their expense, not to mention that this should be mandatory, considering they no longer are among us and are unable to provide a comment. It's a simple question of respect. Is that not something everybody should or could agree on?

Of course, there are occasional inconsistencies and I recently addressed one in my deck plan thread: The bedside of Kirk's cabin in the mirror universe is right next to the corridor. Thus, it's impossible for Marla to change clothes in a bathroom behind the door of the bedside.
Maybe the DP of "Mirror, Mirror" used this obvious inconsistency to emphasize what a strange place the mirror universe is, maybe they didn't pay attention. Again, we don't know.

"In-Universe" it's an inconsistency and obviously you either ignore the corridor next to Kirk's cabin or the bathroom Marla changed clothes or else. Multiple approaches are valid and one will not necessarily be more correct than another one.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
And I don’t know what TV show you’ve been watching, but the captain’s cabin set does not match the secondary hull contours, in fact, MJ designed and built it to look as if it fit within the circular primary hull, which was his intention, this is so obvious I wouldn’t think that it would even need to be questioned? In this case I think your passion has led you astray.
Can you first please make up your mind whether "it's not religion, it's a TV show!" or whether every single screencap should be measured with a ruler?

Yes, it was a television series under enormous budget restraints and sets and door signs were redressed and recycled on a regular base to represent different sections of the ship. Did they intend to keep the radius of the main corridor literal for every scene we saw onscreen? Did they exlude the possibility that the briefing room set could also be used as a room in the outer rim of the saucer (because the radius curvature wouldn't match)?
Applying some common sense, I believe the answer is "no".

Since Kirk's cabin on Deck 12 (in "Mudd's Women") can't either be in the saucer or the dorsal, it can obvioulsly only be an Engineering Deck, the cabin's wall angles match the curvature of the outer hull on E-Deck 12 rather well and last but not least there are windows. Other scenes in TOS have shown circular corridors in the engineering hull, so I dare to say that even in this
part of the galaxy 1+1+1+1 equals 4, thus it's not a question of passion but a logical conclusion.

And what about the large, circular hatch at the bottom of the engineering hull which is quite a contrast to all the other rectangular surface patches / hatches? Looks to me like the genius of Matt Jefferies foresaw the use of circular corridors in the engineering hull and foresightedly provided an "excuse".

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
And this next quote really takes the cake, “I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel…” here, your Freudian slip says it all, you’re blinded by your passion, and cannot, or will not, see that the star trek is not a religion, it’s a TV show!
Look who's talking. The tone of the comments (I'm tempted to say stones) being thrown at me, rather sound like something I'd expect from religious fanatics. I used an analogy to highlight that the original series and what's onscreen should be the first and ultimate point of common reference. If you disagree, just say so and you will not hear from me again.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Oh, I almost forgot; how in the world do you figure FJ "ignored" the stage set floor plans from TMoST when he not only used it for the basis of his deck seven plan, but actually inadvertently copied some of the discrepancies it had with the actual sets?
FJ may not have a VCR, he may have missed the local reruns of TOS to take notes etc. However, TMoST provided him with the actual Season Two/Three studio set blueprint (apparently he didn't have the Season One blueprint) that revealed to him exactly what the corridor layout and alignment of rooms needed to look like, still he "ignored" to reproduce and "assemble" it accordingly and accurately and altered it into something different.

There was no scene ever in TOS where a turbo lift would be the main entry to any of the engine rooms. Whatever ship is represented here, it's definitely not the Enterprise.

And could you please elaborate what "discrepancies" or "inaccuracies" of the original studio set you have in mind, other than the one I mentioned earlier? I'm really curious.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; May 22 2013 at 10:44 AM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.